CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 489/24 Kutay YOKUŞLU against Türkiye lodged on 28 December 2023 communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the independence and impartiality of the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”). The applicant is a football player who played for the Altay football club (“the club”) at the material time. On 24 May 2023 the applicant sent a formal notice to the club stating that he would terminate his contract 30 days after the receipt of the notice if his outstanding salary was not paid. The club paid the applicant’s salary within this time-limit. However, as the applicant failed to inform his lawyer of this payment, his lawyer filed a contract termination notice with the TFF which then registered the termination in its official records and therefore gave legal effect to it according to the domestic law. The applicant’s request to have this situation corrected was rejected by the Board of Directors of the TFF on 9 August 2023 on the grounds that the termination in question had given rise to a new legal situation ( yenilik doğuran işlem ) which could not be reversed according to the domestic law. On 28 August 2023 the Arbitration Committee of the TFF rejected, by a summary decision, the applicant’s objection to that decision. According to the applicant’s submissions, the reasoned decision which should have been issued within 3 months from the date of the summary decision has not been published nor served on him despite the expiry of the three-month time-limit prescribed by the Arbitration Committee Directive ( Tahkim Kurulu Talimatı ). The applicant complains that he did not receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal before the Arbitration Committee, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complains under the same provision that the summary decision of the Arbitration Committee did not contain any reasoning and the continued non-issuance of the reasoned decision impairs his right of access to a court. Lastly, he complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he could not legally continue his contractual relationship with the club as a result of the TFF’s above-mentioned decisions, despite the fact that both the club and him wanted to do so. He argues that he had to sign a new contract with another football club and had to move to another city. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, regard being had in particular to the amendments to the relevant legislation which entered into force following the Court’s findings in Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4   others, §§   194-223, 28 January 2020)?   2.     Has the Arbitration Committee’s failure to issue the reasoned decision violated the applicant’s right of access to a court and/ or to a reasoned decision as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83 and 84, 11   July 2017)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the impugned decision of the TFF? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-117, 25 September 2018)?